THE STATE EX REL. DISPATCH PRINTING COMPANY ET AL.
v.
JOHNSON, DIR., ET AL.
Supreme Court of Ohio.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Submitted May 10, 2005.
Decided September 7, 2005.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Zeiger, Tigges, Little & Lindsmith, L.L.P., John W. Zeiger, and Marion H. Little Jr., for relators.
Jim Petro, Attorney General, William C. Becker and Randall W. Knutti, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents C. Scott Johnson, Department of Administrative Services, Adjutant General's Department, Department of Aging, Department of Agriculture, Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, Office of Budget and Management, Department of Commerce, Office of Criminal Justice Services, Department of Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health, Department of Insurance, Department of Job and Family Services, Lottery Commission, Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Department of Public Safety, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Taxation, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Workers' Compensation, and Department of Youth Services.
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Kurtis A. Tunnell, and Maria J. Armstrong, for respondents Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and Ohio Department of Mental Health.
Cloppert, Latanick, Sauter & Washburn, Robert W. Sauter, Ronald H. Snyder, and Kristin L. Seifert, for respondent Ohio Education Association.
Linda K. Fiely, Associate General Counsel, for intervening respondent OCSEA/AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO.
Crabbe, Brown & James L.L.P., Larry H. James, and Laura MacGregor Comek, urging denial of the writs for amicus curiae National Fraternal Order of Police.
Subodh Chandra, Cleveland Director of Law, Barbara A. Langhenry, Chief Assistant Director of Law, Thomas L. Anastos, and Julie A. Lady, Assistant Directors of Law, urging denial of the writs for amici curiae Cleveland Municipal Court and city of Cleveland.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J.
{¶ 1} In this case, we determine whether state-employee home addresses are public records for purposes of the Public Records Act. For the reasons specified, we hold that in general, state-employee home addresses are not "records" under R.C. 149.011(G) and 149.43 because they do not document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the state and its agencies...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
